Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Keeley

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Keeley

152 N.W. 189, 160 Wis. 546, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 136

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedApril 13, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 152 N.W. 189 (Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Keeley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Keeley, 152 N.W. 189, 160 Wis. 546, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 136 (Wis. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SiebecKee, J.

The only question raised is, Was there an agreement, consented to by the defendant, the Palace of Sweets Company, and the L. A. Becker Company, by which the debt of M. W. Eeeley on these notes was extinguished and the Palace of Sweets Company accepted as the obligor of the debt evidenced by the notes? The Palace of Sweets Company admittedly agreed with the defendant, M. W. Keeley, to assume this debt in consideration of the transfer of all the property of defendant to the company. It is not required that acceptance of the terms of novation be shown by express words, but it may be implied from the facts and circumstances of the transaction and the conduct of the parties in relation thereto. An examination of the evidence and the [549]*549conduct of tbe parties attending tbe transaction of novation bas satisfied us that tbe circuit court was fully justified in concluding that tbe L. A. Becker Company, plaintiff’s assignor and tbe owner of tbe notes in question when tbe Palace of Sweets Company bad been organized in March, 1910, consented to accept tbe Palace of Sweets Company as tbe obligor on these notes and thereby released tbe defendant from liability. We cannot say that tbe findings of tbe trial court are against tbe clear preponderance of tbe evidence.

By the Court. — Tbe judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SiebecKee, J.

The only question raised is, Was there an agreement, consented to by the defendant, the Palace of Sweets Company, and the L. A. Becker Company, by which the debt of M. W. Eeeley on these notes was extinguished and the Palace of Sweets Company accepted as the obligor of the debt evidenced by the notes? The Palace of Sweets Company admittedly agreed with the defendant, M. W. Keeley, to assume this debt in consideration of the transfer of all the property of defendant to the company. It is not required that acceptance of the terms of novation be shown by express words, but it may be implied from the facts and circumstances of the transaction and the conduct of the parties in relation thereto. An examination of the evidence and the [549]*549conduct of tbe parties attending tbe transaction of novation bas satisfied us that tbe circuit court was fully justified in concluding that tbe L. A. Becker Company, plaintiff’s assignor and tbe owner of tbe notes in question when tbe Palace of Sweets Company bad been organized in March, 1910, consented to accept tbe Palace of Sweets Company as tbe obligor on these notes and thereby released tbe defendant from liability. We cannot say that tbe findings of tbe trial court are against tbe clear preponderance of tbe evidence.

By the Court. — Tbe judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 N.W. 189, 160 Wis. 546, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-babcock-becker-co-v-keeley-wis-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack